I thought I knew all about alcoholism, as I come from a family littered with it. But this interview takes it to an all-new level. (I skim some of your emails, as there is usually soooo much to unpack, but this one I read start to finish.)
Lately I've been immersed in the work of Swedenborg. The main theme is about man's eternal choice - to chose the Call of the Spiritual, or to chose the Call of the Material. (My words, not his - his writings are far more eloquent.)
I've often wondered if alcoholism is in part the attempt to "silence" the ever-present call to the spiritual? Put-to-sleep that voice, and let the ego take over.
I'm one of the fortunate few who had a parent that fully embraced the 12 steps of AA. It happened late in his life, and it took several years of the work for him to fully embrace the humility/higher power aspect of it, but the transformation was unmistakable. It was like watching a human being do a complete 180. Seeing that, and experiencing that process, was instrumental in helping me make better choices. I'll be forever grateful for that part of my life.
On the "euphoric recall" subject I would humbly like to add that euphoric recall extends to adult children as well. It can be experienced as entering into repeated toxic relationships, and returning to said relationships after every blowup with the "What happened wasn't really all *THAT* bad, and he said loves me, and we have all this fun together, etc." Kind of like wearing hard-coded rose colored glasses.
Thanks so much for this great interview. I'll be sharing it with others.
Thank you, Kelli. The 180 transformation your parent did was truly amazing to watch, no doubt. It can be seen in every recovering alcoholic who fully embraces the 12-step program, which is designed to deflate the massive alcoholic ego. It's not so obvious in relatively benign alcoholics, or in those who don't work the program to its fullest extent, but recovery is daylight compared with the practicing alcoholic's darkness.
On the euphoric recall in adult children, I suggest such children are "used to" the behaviors their alcoholic parent exhibited. We tend to gravitate towards that which is familiar in romantic (and perhaps other) relationships, especially when spending many years under the alcoholic parent's care. My father's alcoholism fueled some pretty fun parties, even if he got a bit crazy at times. As a result, in relationships I sometimes gravitated toward women who were really fun but at times erratic. I took the good with the bad until the bad outweighed the good. But when I understood alcoholism, I realized there was no reason to take the bad and I was better off with even-keeled partners than "exciting" ones.
I, like some other comments, have been surrounded by alcoholism my entire life. I have seen relatives go in and out of detox/rehab, to AA, and go sober on their own. Some are sober, some are still alcoholics and others have died as a direct result of their drinking. AA can work but it's also not for everyone. As a nutritionist, the one thing I want to point out, is that diet is critical during recovery. Many are fed highly refined, high carb diets in rehab and are quickly placed on meds for anxiety and depression (which may resolve once alcohol is removed and health restored making the drugs unnecessary). Many alcoholics are severely nutrient deficient, have liver issues and have a host of gut issues from drinking. Addressing these issues, can aid in a successful recovery but often gets overlooked.
I totally agree, Karen. If recovery houses really wanted to get and keep addicts sober, they would include the elimination of most carbs, all processed carbs, and all seed oils in their programs, and recovering alcoholics doing this on their own would do the same. As I wrote on page 280 of my book, "Drunks, Drugs & Debits," citing Susan Powter, "Bill Wilson, co-founder of AA, 'was interested in the connection between his drinking and his 'enormous' sugar intake....He got rid of sugar, 'stabilized his blood sugar and achieved a sense of well-being.'" I had an entire section devoted to nutritional support (pp. 277-283, in the chapter, "Improving the Treatment of Drug Addiction").
Wonderful, glad to hear you covered nutrition in your book. I thought years ago I heard something about AA was not permitted to talk about the nutrients that alcohol depletes but I can't recall where I heard that or even the reason why so I may be incorrect.
I don't know that AA doesn't or does permit that, but I do not follow everything in AA, terrific program though it is. As they say at AA meetings, take what you like and leave the rest.
Addicts also often cross-addict, why changing the total environment is so critical, as less enabling is available. Devices/blue light further spike and deplete dopamine - so only a true alcohol-digital detox will yield results in my opinion. Tonic dopamine levels can also be helped with bone broth (glycine calms, creates GABA) and avoiding glyphosate (replaces glycine) and getting sunlight (amplifies light energy harvesting of glycine)
Very important observations and ideas. I've been meaning to read your writings about EMF dangers. I'm glad I read this comment. Do you think that Big Money has modelled the half life of various addictive products and determined that electronic social media software applications represents possibly the "one ring to rule them all" in the Addiction Market?
Hi Shawn! Thanks for your question. Not sure - but it's probably where everything is headed. I hear from other teens / ppl in their 20s who are proud that they don't drink or party, meanwhile they're most likely infertile, don't have sex, and stay up playing video games all night. Addiction is a funny thing as denial is strong. Those are my two cents. How long have you been aware of the dangers around EMF?
All I can say after trying to get through this interview is, for anyone seeking genuine insight into alcoholism or any other addiction, to look at the work of Gabor Mate. He is a medical doctor, a psychiatrist, and someone who spent a decades long career working with alcoholics and addicts of all kinds in Vancouver, BC. He's conducted valuable research, written books and produced many videos on the topic of addiction and the many misunderstandings people have around alcoholism in particular. While Mr. Thorburn has clearly been hurt by behaviors he associates with addiction, he seems to have allowed his own painful experience to construct a model of alcoholism that is shallow, littered with cliches and generalizations, and lacking insight as to the fundamental causes of addiction. Many 'experts' (people who work with addicts and alcoholics) have now come to view addictions (including alcoholism) as maladaptive coping strategies in response to trauma. It's complicated, and each individual will find a different road to recovery.
Just as so many medical doctors were wrong about the Fauci-Wuhan Virus, masks and vaccines, they are often (usually) wrong about alcoholism. Your comment suggests anyone can become an alcoholic--after all, anyone can adopt a "maladaptive coping strategy" in their maladaptive response to trauma by drinking addictively. Sorry, but no. If you do not have the disease of alcoholism, try drinking addictively. You will not be able to.
I'm a recovering alcoholic. I also worked as a substance abuse counselor and as a Department of Mental Health Case Manager. I am a subject matter expert both as an alcoholic and as a trained professional substance abuse counselor. I couldn't get through his response to your first question. I was struck by the fact that the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous was not mentioned in his readings. A book where all the answers to all the questions I have ever had about who I am, what I am and how I can live a healthy productive life are contained within the first 164 pages. Specifically, the chapter's More About Alcoholism and There Is A Solution are, if you will, the instruction manual of life for people like me.
Painting people with a broad brush, even alcoholics and drug addicts is ill-advised. The Big Book tells me there are different varieties of alcoholics and I cringed at the following passage:
"I never smelled booze on her—addicts know how to hide the smell. She added vodka to her morning coffee and covered up the odour with perfume and mouthwash. Recovering alcoholics admit they are the world’s greatest liars. Indeed. I finally figured out she was lying about her sobriety, as addicts do when threatened with the loss of the enabler(s) and their perceived “right” to drink."
There's a lot to unpack in that brief paragraph so I'll take it one sentence at a time.
"I never smelled booze on her—addicts know how to hide the smell." Bullshit. Putting aside the tell tale signs of "trying" to mask the smell of alcohol with perfume and mouthwash, Vodka has a very distinct odor which cannot be covered with mouthwashes or perfumes.
If you're an alcoholic like me, a "low bottom drunk" you end up not giving a shit who knows your drinking. My entire personality changes once in a blackout. If police aren't involved and I just pass out it usually ends with me pissing myself wherever I end up laying down to sleep. Absolutely anything, any behavior is possible when I drink. Nothing is off the table. Not all alcoholics are this severe. I am of the hopeless verity.
"Recovering alcoholics admit they are the world’s greatest liars." Yes lying to others and most importantly to ourselves is a hallmark of the illness. The reverse, honesty is the key to sobriety. Hence the suggestion to be "Open Minded, Willing and Honest" and the passage from the Big Book, "There are those, too, who suffer from grave
emotional and mental disorders, but many of them do recover if they have the capacity to be honest. Alcoholics Anonymous, Chapter 5, p. 38
I lied. I lied to me first then everyone else second. I was a bad liar, not a great liar. Everyone in my orbit knew I had a problem and knew I was lying. EVERYONE! I've heard many in halls say they were the last ones to find out they had a problem. I think that's BULLSHIT to. In my own experience I knew I had a problem. Nearly every time I drank I'd blackout. I tried every possible way of drinking without blacking out. I stopped the booze and drank beer. I would eat before drinking. I tried just drinking on the weekend. Always I would fail and end up drinking more than I planned and would often blackout. I was told by those around me that Alcoholism was the only disease that was "self diagnosed". So I got the idea that as long as I didn't admit I was an alcoholic I wouldn't be an alcoholic. But I knew in my bones I was an alcoholic. I just wanted to be like other people and be able to drink and have fun like others. The idea that I could drink like normal people had to be smashed. And it was smashed by ever more horrible events perpetrated by me as a result of drinking and subsequent blackouts.
Hence the need for honesty required by the first step.
“We admitted we were powerless over alcohol — that our lives had become unmanageable.”
Lastly, I'm an alcoholic. The alcohol has been removed and what I'm left with is the "ic". When alcohol is removed from Alcoholism what's left is the "ism". The 12 steps are what I use to deal with my "ism". Self centered, self loathing, narcissistic to the extreme which leads me to self destruction. Alcohol is but a symptom of the problem. I remained sober for 26 years. 16 of them without the support of AA through meetings and actively living the 12 steps. I can tell you unequivocally that I was an untreated alcoholic during those 16 years. Hence the term "Dry Drunk". I refer to those years as my "Stark Raving Sober" years.
A wise man pulled me aside in my early journey in recovery and told me that "I" was the problem. "I" am the problem and "I" would always be the problem." I've come to rely heavily on the following prayer.
"A.A. Big Book – Acceptance is the answer to all my problems today. When I am disturbed, it is because I find some person, place, thing or situation- some fact of my life- unacceptable to me, and I can find no serenity until I accept that person, place, thing, or situation as being exactly the way it is supposed to be at this moment. Nothing, absolutely nothing, happens in God's world by mistake. Until I could accept my alcoholism, I could not stay sober; unless I accept my life completely on life's terms, I cannot be happy. I need to concentrate not so much on what needs to be changed in the world as on what needs to be changed in me and in my attitudes."
Sorry, Grumpy, but my work is not about AA, which is a great way to stay sober. It's a fabulous program; Dr. Bob and Bill W. were brilliant. How they figured out that egomania needed to be crushed, which is what the first 11 steps do, is beyond me.
My work is about early identification. It is rarely detected early in the natural progression of alcoholism. All-too-often it is caught, if at all, after a divorce, after a loss of job, after a DUI that maims or kills someone.
As for smelling vodka: some people do not smell it. I am one of those.
A "low bottom drunk" is not the person I'm interested in. I'm not in the least interested in the "Lost Weekend" types. I am interested in the (TV show) "House, MD" types--highly functional addicts; or, more on point with "Johnny" Daniels (as Lt. Col. Frank Slade called "Jack"), (movie) "Scent of a Woman."
The rest of your screed (and it's a good screed, except for the part where you seem to think I disagree with you) is good. It's about a low-bottom drunk. That's what I'm trying to prevent--from alcoholism destroying the person's life and many lives of those around him, to alcoholism barely getting started before it's nipped in the bud. And to do that one must understand EARLY-stage alcoholism, which yours is not.
Respectfully, may I offer to you my opinion on that matter? It's my belief that physiology plays the prominent role in addiction. It's not nature verses nurture but a combination where physiology is the deciding factor. I offer my own experience in this regard. I didn't become an alcoholic because I was molested at a young age, or because my step father treated me badly or because I was locked away in the Department of Youth Services from the age of 15 to 18 or that while I'm state custody I was sexually abused by a biker gang that ran the foster home if been placed in. These were certainly reasons I drank and drugged. But it isn't why I continued to drink and drug despite my life circling the drain as I did so. Once I put alcohol in my system it truly triggers the phenomenon of craving and I lose the power of choice. And not just the choice to drink or not drink. I mean the choice about everything. Birthdays, anniversaries, employment, you name it out the window it went.
I to have given this question if why am I the way I am a great deal of thought. My current sponsor says it's of little consequence to me to know. In practical terms for me I agree but I'm curious and also wish to improve the world around me and so from that perspective I disagree. I think it could potentially be quite helpful in the future.
I believe alcoholics like me are genetically predisposed. My body, the liver in particular doesn't process alcohol the way non-alcoholics do. As a result more alcohol enters my blood stream faster than the non-alcoholic. Consequently more alcohol passes to the brain faster than a non-alcoholic.
Looking at the brain like an onion, it's layered or sectioned. The first part of the brain to be affected by alcohol being that it's an anesthetic is the cerebral cortex. This is the part of the brain that makes decisions. So it's no wonder that the power of choice is lost early in the process for alcoholics.
I suppose if your really interested in arresting alcoholism before it manifests itself you could invest in testing people's livers and the rate at which they filter alcohol or of the system. But you could only suggest to those you find susceptible that they don't drink. It's still their choice whether or not to follow that advice.
My son has all the ism's and he drinks. I've educated him on this topic. It's all I can do. But he hasn't crossed that invisible line...... Yet.
Grumpy, the predisposition is genetic. You craved it because it made you feel "great." No question you process it differently than do non-addicts; whether it's in the liver's inability to process acetaldehyde, allowing this poison to accumulate, or by some other mechanism, is to me irrelevant. The observable fact is the processing of the drug is clearly different in alcoholics, which results in distorted perceptions which, because of the resulting egomania, causes the addict to have a need to wield power over others. And the use of that power is capricious.
I knew an Irishman who never had a drink. I asked, why? You're Irish! Because my father was an alcoholic. So? He was a vile human being, so I chose never to drink. Here was a guy who put two and two together at a young age. Very smart. Most are not so astute.
What is important, I think, for recovering alcoholics to grasp is it is genetic. The fact of alcoholism is something over which you had no choice. This understanding is crucial, because every alcoholic committed some minor to major atrocity they will, eventually, remember (they will not recall them all because they never remember anything occurring during a blackout--the events don't enter the memory banks--and euphoric recall precludes them from remembering so much accurately). They need to be able to forgive themselves for past misdeeds. However, this also tells them they can never again drink again safely--if they do, they will at some point act badly and just possibly destroy a life, even the life of one they love. They cannot get around this simple fact: they cannot drink without acting badly, some of the time.
Society needs to understand this so they can help the addict make and keep the right decision: use, and you will lose your family, home, employment, health insurance. Don't use, and all will get better for you, eventually. And so long as you don't use, we'll stand by you to lend a helping hand. If you use, that hand will be used as a cudgel, metaphorically speaking.
Doug this will be my last attempt to help you understand. And believe me when I tell you I'm on my best behavior.
No Doug I didn't "crave" it to feel "great" or "powerful". I drank initially to be like other people and immediately found an escape from bad thoughts and feelings within myself (I fit in) However, once in my system I lost the power of choice. And by choice Doug I really mean choice. I'm only going to have a couple tonight I would tell myself and the next thing I know I'm being thrown out of a bar at closing and my weeks pay is gone. Or I'd be out with friends and they'd leave and I would stay or they'd stay and I'd leave for a bigger party. Or I'd wake up in a jail cell having no idea what the hell happened. I'd done it again. These events would only add to the negative self loathing I experienced on a daily basis which I would then drink to escape from and the jack pots would get worse and so the viscous cycle would go.
So Doug the craving isn't too feel great it's simply craving more. It's always the next drink is the one that's going to get me to Nirvana but once I have that drink it's the next drink. Get it Doug? And with that insanity comes consequences. Relationship troubles, employment problems, legal problems, medical problems etc.
You talk about your interest in the "Dr. House" version of the addict/alcoholic. I think your chasing a ghost. It's a fiction. Indeed it's a fictional character. Following my second DUI I laid off the booze because in order to drive I had to blow in a box. So I stuck to the pain pills the VA gave me due to injuries sustained in Iraq. Oh sure I wasn't blacking out all over the place and waking up in urine soaked clothing on a regular basis which in comparison looked like functioning but I was every bit as out of control as I was when I was drinking. I would chase that euphoric high (different from alcohol) the same way I chased the escape in the bottle. Plus with the pills making the physical pain I was in I could get stuff done. But eventually it was the same thing. It was always the next pill that was going to do it but my brains ability to make dopamine was gone. What I was chasing wasn't there anymore.
Now that I've put to pen my experience it's even clearer to me how alcoholism and drug addiction are two sides of the same coin. Different but sharing the phenomenon of craving. Sounds crazy I know but I've never drank and not been drunk where as I've taken pain pills and couldn't get high. I would get a little euphoric effect that would quickly dissipate and I'd be chasing that with copious amounts of drugs, never finding it.
So Doug, How can the very mechanism by which an illness manifests be "irrelevant" to you? Isn't the goal to find out why something is the way it is to determine how it happened? Strangling it in it's crib so to speak?
Alcoholism is a complex disorder because it is a three fold disease. It's mental, physical, spiritual.
It seems to me Doug your on this quest as a direct result of your childhood. When my son was young he was going to become biochemist to cure something I had come down with. He wanted to save his dad. An admirable goal. Eventually he moved on from that idea but it's not uncommon for the children of alcoholics to want to find the "cure" for alcoholism to save others from the pain they endured.
I don't usually give advice Doug but I'm going to make an exception. I found the cure to my pain in trusting God, cleaning house and helping others. My advice to you is to find the cure to your pain then pass it on.
BTW, fictional characters are often created not out of thin air, but of real people--or a composite of such--the writers have known. Dr. House is a fabulous example of what I might have looked like had I inherited alcoholism--the INTJ alcoholic.
Another fictional character you might want to study is Al Pacino's portrayal of Lt. Col. Frank Slade. Driving a vette while blind is a whole lot more "fictional" than a Dr. House identifying odd maladies (but only after he "thought" he had the answer multiple times in each episode only to realize he was wrong; time to move on to the next hypothesis). But when I showed that scene to chemical dependency counselors are continuing education events in the early 2000s, many counselors at each event told me they'd been a counselor for three decades, had been a practicing addict for a decade or two before, and they'd seen the movie three times. It had never struck them that Pacino's portrayal was among the greatest ever of an alcoholic. A blind man could charm a young lady onto the dance floor and teach her the tango, and he could intimidate his "babysitter" into doing whatever he wanted him to do. It is the greatest portrayal of an addict, ever, from which one can learn about two of the faces of addiction in terms of behaviors, but both coalescing around the central theme of control of and, therefore, abuse of others.
I am mostly interested in alcoholics others are not identifying. The counselors--and nearly everyone who has ever seen the movie--think it's a movie about a blind man. No, it is not. It's about an alcoholic. And he lost his eyesight because a hand grenade he and his buddies were juggling together during a drinking game blew up in his face.
First, please don't try to psychoanalyze me before reading about the INTJ personality type, which explains "me." As for saving others from the pain they endured--the "others" I focus on are the alcohol/other-drug addicts' victims. Those you hurt that got you imprisoned. Those whose relationships you destroyed, the employers you stole from or otherwise harmed that got you fired or, at least, in trouble.
Second, you confuse the outcome with the cause. Alcohol and other-drug addiction is mental, physical and spiritual--in outcomes, not in its cause. Its cause is biological, rooted in ones genes. Only that can explain why it runs more in some ancestries than in others, more in some families than in others. Only that explains how adopted children growing up in loving adopted homes can turn into raging monsters, out of control brats. Why were they adopted out? Why is a grandchild being raised by a grandparent? In every case, because one or both parents are alcohol/other-drug addicts. Aside from the rarity of both parents being killed, I have never seen an exception.
Third, you were a late stage alcohol/other-drug addict. Waking up in your own urine is a tell-tale sign, even if there might be exceptions. I'm not so interested in you as the obvious drunk, with bar fights, loss of employment, loss of family, soaked in your own urine. I'm interested in what you looked like, how you acted, your egomania before you got to that stage. Big man on the block, big man in school, the school-kid bully, the barroom brawler. You could have gone from a kid without booze on board to a late stage alcoholic all in one fell swoop at age 13, but that is highly unlikely. There was an intervening step, which likely took at least a decade or two to get through.
Because that is the natural progression of alcoholism.
BTW, your comment on the 16 years requires a simple response: you were a dry drunk because you did not work the program. Getting sober requires two things, only one of which is abstinence. You had that during those 16 years. But you did not work to deflate your ego. That's the other part of getting sober: ego deflation.
And recovery, living by the 12 steps, is a process of deflating the ego and developing humility.
However, I define "sobriety" as both abstinence and ego deflation. Recovery is more a process. But that's a quibble over the meaning of words which, in this case, is not crucial to the understanding.
I've known perhaps 10 alcoholics in my life personally, most of which were functioning quite well, no egomania or abuse involved. This article gave me little insight to the topic I find myself being familiar and exposed to and some areas where I disagree. Mainly genetics which I see as a pseudo-science. A crutch so to speak. A doctor can't find a cause for your condition, it's because you're a smoker, or lived with a smoker or played poker with smokers. Genetics proves nothing except perhaps your eye color.
In researching alcoholism decades ago I came across a paper by a doctor who claimed alcoholism was relabeled to disease status (kinda like the flu became covid) so the rich & famous could get insurance medical coverage and not be labeled a drunk as the lowly people were regarded. Insurance will only cover an AMA registered disease. This chicanery was no surprise to me at the time. IMO, Alcoholism is not a disease, no more than obesity or smoking is.
I also didn't pick up on any childhood abuse (except for his sister) as a root cause of low worth or non-existent self esteem. Alcohol being the means of overcoming that pain. The article also gave me the sense that if you're looking for a trigger for something you will surely find it. Scratch hard enough and you will come to the same conclusion, every time. In other words, a bit like obsession.
On the ground, in real life, alcoholics I've known used booze as a crutch to uplift themselves to a perceived level of acceptance that hitherto they could not attain on their own. Sad but true.
If you know 10 alcoholics, you only know 100 people. I've a hunch you are missing a whole slew of them, because 10% of Americans are alcoholics, and it's much higher in some other cultures.
The fact that it's a disease should not translate to "the treatment is insurable," because the impetus for getting sober is tough love and the way to stay sober is the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous and the 12-step program of AA. And that's nearly free.
You missed the egomania in the "ten" you know because you were not among their targets. They don't abuse everyone in their life. If you show you will not put up with abuse, they will move along to softer targets and abuse them, not the hard target like you apparently are.
One more thought: obesity and smoking do not cause the afflicted to abuse others. Alcohol and other drugs capable of causing distortions of perception and memory do that. They are completely different.
I do know more folks than I can count who blow it out every Friday, end of work week. It's their reward to themselves for a grueling work week and the anticipation of family time for 2 whole days. They over drink in my estimation but maintain a level of sanity & security for their families. By your definition they would be alcoholics and I guess you'd be right. I'll give you that. I am 100% in accordance with tough love.
My bone of contention with AA is the admitting and convincing oneself that they are powerless to overcome alcohol and that their lives are unmanageable because of that lack of power. That admittance alone goes against every fiber of my being. I, we, they, no one is powerless. That is why I say this is not a disease nor a predisposition to some gene based hogwash. This is a sober choice folks make before they take that first drink that will lead to too much.
I agree they are not powerless. Show me an alcoholic who wants their drink and I will show you someone with greater willpower than I could ever muster.
The trouble is, they don't want to stop drinking because it makes them feel so damned good. Many recovering addicts I interviewed used the phrase, when speaking of their first drinking episode, "For the first time in my life, I felt powerful." That feeling continues throughout their drinking and using careers. The fact it makes them feel powerful is rooted in egomania, which in turn is a result of euphoric recall: they can do no wrong.
Addicts obviously process the drug differently than you and I do. That's a genetic predisposition, causing a differential biological response. This causes them to act badly, some of the time. Like drinking to excess before a long weekend when they have to be with their family and avoid heavy drinking on the weekend. The questions I have are, do they really love their families more than the hooch? and are they really providing a level of sanity and security for their family--or, perhaps, does being able to so provide serve to inflate their egos? In other words, ego inflation can serve to do good. It does not mean the results will be good every time, nor does it mean they are not alcoholics.
There are some fine lines. Churchill did great good, but his financial life was a mess. Thomas Paine, who I view as the true founder of the United States (the Declaration summarized his "Common Sense," which sold more per capita than any book ever except perhaps the Bible), had six or so people attending his funeral because his misbehaviors as a result of alcoholism caused him to gradually lose nearly all of his friends. I have known two absurdly heavy drinkers in whom I could not confirm alcoholism; well, one admitted he recently got sober. I still don't know about the other because none of his friends or family has come clean about any misbehaviors.
I find no continuity in your discourse. We are going around in circles. One phrase I agree with and have seen for myself, the next is a contradiction. IMO you draw to broad a stroke at the same time too fine a line. "Two heavy drinkers" you could not confirm as alcoholics? Yet a Friday nighter is labeled such. Good parents who carve out time for themselves weekly are just that, good parents. Your analogy is even more upending.
Churchill was a absurdly heavy drinker, morning to night, abominable disposition who was solely responsible for starting WW11. He did NO good yet his funeral was treated as hail the conquering hero.
Did he drink like a pig because of his ego or did the drink give him his ego.
Thomas Paine, a giant of a man, ruffled a few feathers yet no one showed up to his funeral. "The evil that men do lives after them, the good oft interred with their bones". By that metric, Paine was evil and Churchill was the good guy. So all the egotists showed up for that monsters funeral and same did not show up for Paine. I'm not picking up what you're trying to lay down, so let it be with Caesar.
And that is how variable alcoholism is. The common thread: acting badly some of the time, which can be connected to heavy use.
Not only can a "Friday night" drinker be identified as an alcoholic if they act badly; one who drinks once a year can be, if they drink enough and screw up badly enough (as in destroying a relationship or life on their one bender of the year). Yet many "normies" drink every day--think the French and Italian and their wine--and they don't act badly and, therefore, cannot be identified as alcoholics.
You can drink all day and not be one. A 200-pound person can drink a bottle of wine spread out evenly over the day and reach a BAL of--near zero. Two bottles spread out over 12 hours and, at the end of the day, the BAL is .06%. A 120-pounder? .18%. She's an alcoholic, while he is not.
The drink gave Churchill his egomania. As for good v. bad, I might agree with you on Churchill; I haven't studied him adequately. But consider greatness: five of eight Nobel Prize winning authors from the United States during the 20th century were alcoholic. 30% of Academy Award winning actors have been alcoholics (skewed just a bit because Jack Nicholson won three times). There has been almost no revolutionary change in music brought about by non-addicts, from Beethoven to Lennon.
The variability of behaviors and the fact that journalists, historians and biographers don't look for alcoholism in their subjects--too many of them are alcoholics--makes it difficult to find and confirm. But show me their personal lives and I will tell you with 80-90% degree of certainty whether the subject is an alcoholic. The problem is digging deep enough.
Thank you for this information. I have read through it twice and now understand my sister’s situation. We come from a very dysfunctional family and my sister (50) is an alcoholic. My parents are in denial (80’s). She emotionally manipulates them and others around her. I have had enough and refuse to bail her out of financial situations. Now I’m the bad guy. She has recently married her enabler who drinks with her knowing she attended AA twice a day for around 6 months. To top it off she has a marketing /PR firm that represents different alcohols (bourbon in particular, her favorite drink).
The part about ego hit home and now iI understand so much more. Thank you again
Pleasure, Gbro. Understanding this can lift an enormous weight off our shoulders. Before I grasped it I went nuts over the fact I could not understand why someone would do "that," whatever "that" was. Someone doing something as mundane as cutting in line on the road or at a store would make me go nuts. Now, now knowing "that alkie is doing what alkies do," allows me to easily let go. (Non-NTs would have an easier time of it without understanding, but NTs have a need to understand, and I'm one of those.)
Parents and governments are the biggest enablers, which makes helping alcoholics find their bottom challenging at best.
Is it possible that understanding this God complex of alcoholism may help us also understand how the perpetrators of the last four years were capable of doing what they've done?
With apologies, I forgot to respond more fully than with a simple "yes" to your incisive query. That's a HUGE "yes."
I'm likely repeating what you already appear to have picked up, but for the benefit of others: because alcoholism causes a Godlike sense of self, and the fact that alcoholism stays so hidden in the early stages, the fact that so long as alcoholics successfully inflate their egos they seem to stave off late-stage alcoholism, and the fact so many of the worst rise to the top of bureaucratic organizations, many if not most of the perpetrators of this, the greatest crime scene since Marxism, are likely alcoholics.
Let's take that sentence piece by piece. Due to euphoric recall, which causes the addict to recall everything they do and say through self-favoring lenses, alcoholics think they are God or at least on a level playing field with God.
Alcoholism remains hidden from most observers because they do not look drunk at BALs at which the rest of us are slurring our speech and staggering. Those close don't divulge the secret because they are either embarrassed, as parents might be, or they have too much to lose, as employees or partners might. After all, if the secret is outed employees and others have positions of power, incomes, wealth and prestige to lose.
They are able to stave off late-stage alcoholism via successful ego inflation. After all, the God becomes a bigger God: look what I can do/get away with/wealth I can create/sex I can have/etc. That keeps them going.
Finally, as Frederich Hayek wrote, the worst rise to the top of bureaucratic organizations. But Hayek did not adequately explain why: because alcoholics have an undying need to wield capricious power over others. What better way than by becoming extraordinarily successful? Such success includes rising to the top of organizations whose main job is to wield power. I think that explains much of what we see in government and some big businesses.
So yes, the criminals--just like probably 90% of other criminals, both ordinary and masterclass--who perpetrated this greatest of scams are very likely, in large part, alcohol and other-drug addicts.
We have good evidence that Peter Daszak is an alcoholic. When I researched alcoholism, the addiction expert doctors I interviewed all thought 20% of their fellow MDs were alcohol/other-drug addicts (and that is a prime reason why many of those became doctors--consider the availability of drugs as a doctor, pharmacist, or other medical person. Fauci is likely too old to be an alcoholic, but he could be on pills or, as author James Graham thought about Hitler, perhaps he was seriously abused by an alcoholic as a child. Or he could be among the (I think) 10-20% of the population that acts badly without benefit of chemistry.
BTW, the other greatest crime ever--Marxism--has largely (if not completely) been perpetrated alcohol and other-drug addicts. Marx, alcoholic. Stalin, alcoholic. The Kims of North Korea, alcoholics. Castro, likely amphetamines. Mao, barbiturates. Their brethren, which the propaganda mills have long claimed were their polar opposites on the political spectrum but who, in fact, were their closest relatives, were also nearly all psychoactive drug addicts: Hitler, amphetamines; Mussolini, alcoholic; Nazi bikers and skinheads, all alcoholics and amphetamine addicts.
The fact that historians and biographers don't have a clue about alcoholism (or, in some cases, likely understand it but don't want to out themselves) obliterates our understanding of history: we cannot make sense of history without understanding the genetic roots and behavioral manifestations of alcoholism.
Re: "Environment obviously has nothing to do with determining whether one becomes an alcoholic." What if that environment is full of breweries, wineries and distilleries? The more we reduce biology the more we learn that we don't really understand. Environment absolutely matters, genes and epigenetics matters, your mom's Vitamin D status during pregnancy matters, on and on. A lot of good here in this talk though. I highly recommend and will read more from this author.
Thank you, Shawn. Just to clarify: environment does have to do with whether one triggers a latent alcoholism. It has nothing to do with whether or not alcoholism is latent, or possible. I grew up with alcoholics all around me. I drank. I tried drinking addictively in college. I could not keep up with the alcoholics, nor did I engage in misbehaviors (per everyone I asked about my behaviors when I drank, since a practicing addict is incapable of true self-diagnosis).
No. Misbehaviors, which is a manifestation I think of maladaptive, which is more a term of evolution. In other words, I do not act badly when I drink. Alcoholics do, some of the time. It's not every time.
While I could not disagree more with your point of view, inflexible to the point of blindness, I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors. I'm sure they emanate from a place of wanting to do some good in this world. At least on the vaccines, we are in agreement.
Anyone who thinks that inserting a hyphen between the syllables of the word "disease" conveys some sort of profound meaning needs to be approached with skepticism.
BTW - beware of the 'Strawman' argument, where a point of view is mischaracterized, then shot down. Addiction (of which alcoholism is one of many) is a maladaptive response to trauma, usually of the early childhood variety.
You seem very defensive and rigid in your judgmental perspective on something you have been hurt by, but never personally experienced. Although my guess would be that you have your own addictive behaviors. We all do. Perhaps an addition to Control is among them.
"Addiction... is a maladaptive response to trauma...." No, it is not, Teresa. You have been completely propagandized by establishment "addiction experts."
I had to redefine alcoholism to find it in the early stages. It is a genetic disorder that causes the afflicted person to biologically process the drug alcohol in such a way as to cause that person to act badly, some of the time. No other definition explains, describes or allows us to identify the disease in the early stages. If it were a maladaptive response to trauma, those who can't drink to the degree alcoholics drink--far more than can non-addicts--would exhibit serial misbehaviors. That rarely happens and, when it does, it's usually a child of an alcoholic.
And stop trying to psychoanalyze me. Stop the ad hominem-style attacks. I'm not defensive; I merely get annoyed at those who think they know something about a topic and show off their ignorance. Sort of like "experts" who proclaim vaccines (especially the latest ones) are "safe and effective." The fact that I was hurt did not compel me to become expert at alcoholism, do tens of thousands of hours of research on the subject, and write four books and 70-something addiction reports on everything alcoholism. That was solely because I simply love acquiring knowledge and wisdom. I do "deep dives," as Scott Adams calls them. When I integrate new ideas emanating from such new knowledge and confirm that almost no one has a clue, I enjoy sharing the ideas. This has been true for me in the fields of economics, long-term tax savings strategies, Type and Temperament, behavioral indications of psychoactive drug addiction and, most recently, everything Virus and vaccines (although I haven't come up with much new in most recent area of "deep dives").
If you understood the Scientist type, the INTJ, you might understand my style of obsession, which I readily admit to. But I suspect you are not in the least bit interested.
The thought-provoking quality of the article facilitates further considerations. While I tend to disagree with many statements, the author(s) inspired me to write the following:
Didn't they tried that in the 20's? yes they did. The Prohibition era was the period from 1920 to 1933 when the United States prohibited the production, importation, transportation and sale of alcoholic beverages. And what it did was provide the criminal element an opportunity to make money as well as injure many from the illegal sale of tainted brew.
And like today's prohibition, it corrupted police forces everywhere and allowed really bad people--those willing to take inordinate risks in an illegal trade, and kill to defend their turf when necessary--to become obscenely wealthy.
Prohibition does no good--addicts will always get their drug, or a drug that serves as a substitute for their favorite one. And it does immense damage to society.
All Now With Wings, if you are suggesting prohibition, we tried that. And we continue to try it with the currently illegal substances. It has obviously been a total failure. Legalize it all, learn how to spot alcoholism, and allow employers, landlords and others to discriminate against practicing alcoholics.
I have a note after my email signature line about my expertise in addiction and we haven't had any problems with alcoholics in my tax practice for decades. We had numerous alcoholics and problems before that signature line was in place. Night and day. Insanity vs. sanity. It's the best thing I ever did for my tax practice.
It is "free will." The trouble is, as I noted in the interview, alcoholics experience alcohol and other drugs differently than do you and I. The pleasure from use is nearly immeasurable, and it's something non-addicts cannot possibly understand. That's the reason "uncompromising tough love" is essential to effect a cure.
Thank you for pointing this out, it's most important. For me, it was 'free will' for others, not so much. Thank you for the gentle reminder of Jesus' command to "Love One Another": complete and total acceptance of difference = do not judge.
Bravo for the article, it is a blessing for many and I will share it with many off line.
" pleasure from use is nearly immeasurable, and it's something we cannot possibly understand." We're still young yet, lets be foolish and stop pretending we know more than we really do. It would be really helpful for anyone commenting here to first admit that they recognize that all healthy human cells are a problem with exogenously consumed alcohol and that it is a neurotoxin, even when consumed in minute quantities. Mammal + Neurotoxin = Not Optimal
I thought I knew all about alcoholism, as I come from a family littered with it. But this interview takes it to an all-new level. (I skim some of your emails, as there is usually soooo much to unpack, but this one I read start to finish.)
Lately I've been immersed in the work of Swedenborg. The main theme is about man's eternal choice - to chose the Call of the Spiritual, or to chose the Call of the Material. (My words, not his - his writings are far more eloquent.)
I've often wondered if alcoholism is in part the attempt to "silence" the ever-present call to the spiritual? Put-to-sleep that voice, and let the ego take over.
I'm one of the fortunate few who had a parent that fully embraced the 12 steps of AA. It happened late in his life, and it took several years of the work for him to fully embrace the humility/higher power aspect of it, but the transformation was unmistakable. It was like watching a human being do a complete 180. Seeing that, and experiencing that process, was instrumental in helping me make better choices. I'll be forever grateful for that part of my life.
On the "euphoric recall" subject I would humbly like to add that euphoric recall extends to adult children as well. It can be experienced as entering into repeated toxic relationships, and returning to said relationships after every blowup with the "What happened wasn't really all *THAT* bad, and he said loves me, and we have all this fun together, etc." Kind of like wearing hard-coded rose colored glasses.
Thanks so much for this great interview. I'll be sharing it with others.
Thank you, Kelli. The 180 transformation your parent did was truly amazing to watch, no doubt. It can be seen in every recovering alcoholic who fully embraces the 12-step program, which is designed to deflate the massive alcoholic ego. It's not so obvious in relatively benign alcoholics, or in those who don't work the program to its fullest extent, but recovery is daylight compared with the practicing alcoholic's darkness.
On the euphoric recall in adult children, I suggest such children are "used to" the behaviors their alcoholic parent exhibited. We tend to gravitate towards that which is familiar in romantic (and perhaps other) relationships, especially when spending many years under the alcoholic parent's care. My father's alcoholism fueled some pretty fun parties, even if he got a bit crazy at times. As a result, in relationships I sometimes gravitated toward women who were really fun but at times erratic. I took the good with the bad until the bad outweighed the good. But when I understood alcoholism, I realized there was no reason to take the bad and I was better off with even-keeled partners than "exciting" ones.
I, like some other comments, have been surrounded by alcoholism my entire life. I have seen relatives go in and out of detox/rehab, to AA, and go sober on their own. Some are sober, some are still alcoholics and others have died as a direct result of their drinking. AA can work but it's also not for everyone. As a nutritionist, the one thing I want to point out, is that diet is critical during recovery. Many are fed highly refined, high carb diets in rehab and are quickly placed on meds for anxiety and depression (which may resolve once alcohol is removed and health restored making the drugs unnecessary). Many alcoholics are severely nutrient deficient, have liver issues and have a host of gut issues from drinking. Addressing these issues, can aid in a successful recovery but often gets overlooked.
I totally agree, Karen. If recovery houses really wanted to get and keep addicts sober, they would include the elimination of most carbs, all processed carbs, and all seed oils in their programs, and recovering alcoholics doing this on their own would do the same. As I wrote on page 280 of my book, "Drunks, Drugs & Debits," citing Susan Powter, "Bill Wilson, co-founder of AA, 'was interested in the connection between his drinking and his 'enormous' sugar intake....He got rid of sugar, 'stabilized his blood sugar and achieved a sense of well-being.'" I had an entire section devoted to nutritional support (pp. 277-283, in the chapter, "Improving the Treatment of Drug Addiction").
Wonderful, glad to hear you covered nutrition in your book. I thought years ago I heard something about AA was not permitted to talk about the nutrients that alcohol depletes but I can't recall where I heard that or even the reason why so I may be incorrect.
I don't know that AA doesn't or does permit that, but I do not follow everything in AA, terrific program though it is. As they say at AA meetings, take what you like and leave the rest.
Addicts also often cross-addict, why changing the total environment is so critical, as less enabling is available. Devices/blue light further spike and deplete dopamine - so only a true alcohol-digital detox will yield results in my opinion. Tonic dopamine levels can also be helped with bone broth (glycine calms, creates GABA) and avoiding glyphosate (replaces glycine) and getting sunlight (amplifies light energy harvesting of glycine)
Very important observations and ideas. I've been meaning to read your writings about EMF dangers. I'm glad I read this comment. Do you think that Big Money has modelled the half life of various addictive products and determined that electronic social media software applications represents possibly the "one ring to rule them all" in the Addiction Market?
Hi Shawn! Thanks for your question. Not sure - but it's probably where everything is headed. I hear from other teens / ppl in their 20s who are proud that they don't drink or party, meanwhile they're most likely infertile, don't have sex, and stay up playing video games all night. Addiction is a funny thing as denial is strong. Those are my two cents. How long have you been aware of the dangers around EMF?
Not very long. Sometime during the Pandemonium. Maybe a article from Mercola.
Blue light also spikes dopamine and eventually depletes it:
https://romanshapoval.substack.com/p/children
All I can say after trying to get through this interview is, for anyone seeking genuine insight into alcoholism or any other addiction, to look at the work of Gabor Mate. He is a medical doctor, a psychiatrist, and someone who spent a decades long career working with alcoholics and addicts of all kinds in Vancouver, BC. He's conducted valuable research, written books and produced many videos on the topic of addiction and the many misunderstandings people have around alcoholism in particular. While Mr. Thorburn has clearly been hurt by behaviors he associates with addiction, he seems to have allowed his own painful experience to construct a model of alcoholism that is shallow, littered with cliches and generalizations, and lacking insight as to the fundamental causes of addiction. Many 'experts' (people who work with addicts and alcoholics) have now come to view addictions (including alcoholism) as maladaptive coping strategies in response to trauma. It's complicated, and each individual will find a different road to recovery.
BTW, if addiction was a response to emotional pain, as Mate seems to think, we'd all be alcoholics.
Just as so many medical doctors were wrong about the Fauci-Wuhan Virus, masks and vaccines, they are often (usually) wrong about alcoholism. Your comment suggests anyone can become an alcoholic--after all, anyone can adopt a "maladaptive coping strategy" in their maladaptive response to trauma by drinking addictively. Sorry, but no. If you do not have the disease of alcoholism, try drinking addictively. You will not be able to.
I haven't read this yet, but look at what I just stumbled onto: https://josepheverettwil.substack.com/p/gabor-mate-is-wrong-about-adhd-addiction
Thank you.
I'm a recovering alcoholic. I also worked as a substance abuse counselor and as a Department of Mental Health Case Manager. I am a subject matter expert both as an alcoholic and as a trained professional substance abuse counselor. I couldn't get through his response to your first question. I was struck by the fact that the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous was not mentioned in his readings. A book where all the answers to all the questions I have ever had about who I am, what I am and how I can live a healthy productive life are contained within the first 164 pages. Specifically, the chapter's More About Alcoholism and There Is A Solution are, if you will, the instruction manual of life for people like me.
Painting people with a broad brush, even alcoholics and drug addicts is ill-advised. The Big Book tells me there are different varieties of alcoholics and I cringed at the following passage:
"I never smelled booze on her—addicts know how to hide the smell. She added vodka to her morning coffee and covered up the odour with perfume and mouthwash. Recovering alcoholics admit they are the world’s greatest liars. Indeed. I finally figured out she was lying about her sobriety, as addicts do when threatened with the loss of the enabler(s) and their perceived “right” to drink."
There's a lot to unpack in that brief paragraph so I'll take it one sentence at a time.
"I never smelled booze on her—addicts know how to hide the smell." Bullshit. Putting aside the tell tale signs of "trying" to mask the smell of alcohol with perfume and mouthwash, Vodka has a very distinct odor which cannot be covered with mouthwashes or perfumes.
If you're an alcoholic like me, a "low bottom drunk" you end up not giving a shit who knows your drinking. My entire personality changes once in a blackout. If police aren't involved and I just pass out it usually ends with me pissing myself wherever I end up laying down to sleep. Absolutely anything, any behavior is possible when I drink. Nothing is off the table. Not all alcoholics are this severe. I am of the hopeless verity.
"Recovering alcoholics admit they are the world’s greatest liars." Yes lying to others and most importantly to ourselves is a hallmark of the illness. The reverse, honesty is the key to sobriety. Hence the suggestion to be "Open Minded, Willing and Honest" and the passage from the Big Book, "There are those, too, who suffer from grave
emotional and mental disorders, but many of them do recover if they have the capacity to be honest. Alcoholics Anonymous, Chapter 5, p. 38
I lied. I lied to me first then everyone else second. I was a bad liar, not a great liar. Everyone in my orbit knew I had a problem and knew I was lying. EVERYONE! I've heard many in halls say they were the last ones to find out they had a problem. I think that's BULLSHIT to. In my own experience I knew I had a problem. Nearly every time I drank I'd blackout. I tried every possible way of drinking without blacking out. I stopped the booze and drank beer. I would eat before drinking. I tried just drinking on the weekend. Always I would fail and end up drinking more than I planned and would often blackout. I was told by those around me that Alcoholism was the only disease that was "self diagnosed". So I got the idea that as long as I didn't admit I was an alcoholic I wouldn't be an alcoholic. But I knew in my bones I was an alcoholic. I just wanted to be like other people and be able to drink and have fun like others. The idea that I could drink like normal people had to be smashed. And it was smashed by ever more horrible events perpetrated by me as a result of drinking and subsequent blackouts.
Hence the need for honesty required by the first step.
“We admitted we were powerless over alcohol — that our lives had become unmanageable.”
Lastly, I'm an alcoholic. The alcohol has been removed and what I'm left with is the "ic". When alcohol is removed from Alcoholism what's left is the "ism". The 12 steps are what I use to deal with my "ism". Self centered, self loathing, narcissistic to the extreme which leads me to self destruction. Alcohol is but a symptom of the problem. I remained sober for 26 years. 16 of them without the support of AA through meetings and actively living the 12 steps. I can tell you unequivocally that I was an untreated alcoholic during those 16 years. Hence the term "Dry Drunk". I refer to those years as my "Stark Raving Sober" years.
A wise man pulled me aside in my early journey in recovery and told me that "I" was the problem. "I" am the problem and "I" would always be the problem." I've come to rely heavily on the following prayer.
"A.A. Big Book – Acceptance is the answer to all my problems today. When I am disturbed, it is because I find some person, place, thing or situation- some fact of my life- unacceptable to me, and I can find no serenity until I accept that person, place, thing, or situation as being exactly the way it is supposed to be at this moment. Nothing, absolutely nothing, happens in God's world by mistake. Until I could accept my alcoholism, I could not stay sober; unless I accept my life completely on life's terms, I cannot be happy. I need to concentrate not so much on what needs to be changed in the world as on what needs to be changed in me and in my attitudes."
That last sentence kicks my ass everyday.
Best Regards
Steve
Sorry, Grumpy, but my work is not about AA, which is a great way to stay sober. It's a fabulous program; Dr. Bob and Bill W. were brilliant. How they figured out that egomania needed to be crushed, which is what the first 11 steps do, is beyond me.
My work is about early identification. It is rarely detected early in the natural progression of alcoholism. All-too-often it is caught, if at all, after a divorce, after a loss of job, after a DUI that maims or kills someone.
As for smelling vodka: some people do not smell it. I am one of those.
A "low bottom drunk" is not the person I'm interested in. I'm not in the least interested in the "Lost Weekend" types. I am interested in the (TV show) "House, MD" types--highly functional addicts; or, more on point with "Johnny" Daniels (as Lt. Col. Frank Slade called "Jack"), (movie) "Scent of a Woman."
The rest of your screed (and it's a good screed, except for the part where you seem to think I disagree with you) is good. It's about a low-bottom drunk. That's what I'm trying to prevent--from alcoholism destroying the person's life and many lives of those around him, to alcoholism barely getting started before it's nipped in the bud. And to do that one must understand EARLY-stage alcoholism, which yours is not.
I apologize for coming across shity.
Respectfully, may I offer to you my opinion on that matter? It's my belief that physiology plays the prominent role in addiction. It's not nature verses nurture but a combination where physiology is the deciding factor. I offer my own experience in this regard. I didn't become an alcoholic because I was molested at a young age, or because my step father treated me badly or because I was locked away in the Department of Youth Services from the age of 15 to 18 or that while I'm state custody I was sexually abused by a biker gang that ran the foster home if been placed in. These were certainly reasons I drank and drugged. But it isn't why I continued to drink and drug despite my life circling the drain as I did so. Once I put alcohol in my system it truly triggers the phenomenon of craving and I lose the power of choice. And not just the choice to drink or not drink. I mean the choice about everything. Birthdays, anniversaries, employment, you name it out the window it went.
I to have given this question if why am I the way I am a great deal of thought. My current sponsor says it's of little consequence to me to know. In practical terms for me I agree but I'm curious and also wish to improve the world around me and so from that perspective I disagree. I think it could potentially be quite helpful in the future.
I believe alcoholics like me are genetically predisposed. My body, the liver in particular doesn't process alcohol the way non-alcoholics do. As a result more alcohol enters my blood stream faster than the non-alcoholic. Consequently more alcohol passes to the brain faster than a non-alcoholic.
Looking at the brain like an onion, it's layered or sectioned. The first part of the brain to be affected by alcohol being that it's an anesthetic is the cerebral cortex. This is the part of the brain that makes decisions. So it's no wonder that the power of choice is lost early in the process for alcoholics.
I suppose if your really interested in arresting alcoholism before it manifests itself you could invest in testing people's livers and the rate at which they filter alcohol or of the system. But you could only suggest to those you find susceptible that they don't drink. It's still their choice whether or not to follow that advice.
My son has all the ism's and he drinks. I've educated him on this topic. It's all I can do. But he hasn't crossed that invisible line...... Yet.
Grumpy, the predisposition is genetic. You craved it because it made you feel "great." No question you process it differently than do non-addicts; whether it's in the liver's inability to process acetaldehyde, allowing this poison to accumulate, or by some other mechanism, is to me irrelevant. The observable fact is the processing of the drug is clearly different in alcoholics, which results in distorted perceptions which, because of the resulting egomania, causes the addict to have a need to wield power over others. And the use of that power is capricious.
I knew an Irishman who never had a drink. I asked, why? You're Irish! Because my father was an alcoholic. So? He was a vile human being, so I chose never to drink. Here was a guy who put two and two together at a young age. Very smart. Most are not so astute.
What is important, I think, for recovering alcoholics to grasp is it is genetic. The fact of alcoholism is something over which you had no choice. This understanding is crucial, because every alcoholic committed some minor to major atrocity they will, eventually, remember (they will not recall them all because they never remember anything occurring during a blackout--the events don't enter the memory banks--and euphoric recall precludes them from remembering so much accurately). They need to be able to forgive themselves for past misdeeds. However, this also tells them they can never again drink again safely--if they do, they will at some point act badly and just possibly destroy a life, even the life of one they love. They cannot get around this simple fact: they cannot drink without acting badly, some of the time.
Society needs to understand this so they can help the addict make and keep the right decision: use, and you will lose your family, home, employment, health insurance. Don't use, and all will get better for you, eventually. And so long as you don't use, we'll stand by you to lend a helping hand. If you use, that hand will be used as a cudgel, metaphorically speaking.
Doug this will be my last attempt to help you understand. And believe me when I tell you I'm on my best behavior.
No Doug I didn't "crave" it to feel "great" or "powerful". I drank initially to be like other people and immediately found an escape from bad thoughts and feelings within myself (I fit in) However, once in my system I lost the power of choice. And by choice Doug I really mean choice. I'm only going to have a couple tonight I would tell myself and the next thing I know I'm being thrown out of a bar at closing and my weeks pay is gone. Or I'd be out with friends and they'd leave and I would stay or they'd stay and I'd leave for a bigger party. Or I'd wake up in a jail cell having no idea what the hell happened. I'd done it again. These events would only add to the negative self loathing I experienced on a daily basis which I would then drink to escape from and the jack pots would get worse and so the viscous cycle would go.
So Doug the craving isn't too feel great it's simply craving more. It's always the next drink is the one that's going to get me to Nirvana but once I have that drink it's the next drink. Get it Doug? And with that insanity comes consequences. Relationship troubles, employment problems, legal problems, medical problems etc.
You talk about your interest in the "Dr. House" version of the addict/alcoholic. I think your chasing a ghost. It's a fiction. Indeed it's a fictional character. Following my second DUI I laid off the booze because in order to drive I had to blow in a box. So I stuck to the pain pills the VA gave me due to injuries sustained in Iraq. Oh sure I wasn't blacking out all over the place and waking up in urine soaked clothing on a regular basis which in comparison looked like functioning but I was every bit as out of control as I was when I was drinking. I would chase that euphoric high (different from alcohol) the same way I chased the escape in the bottle. Plus with the pills making the physical pain I was in I could get stuff done. But eventually it was the same thing. It was always the next pill that was going to do it but my brains ability to make dopamine was gone. What I was chasing wasn't there anymore.
Now that I've put to pen my experience it's even clearer to me how alcoholism and drug addiction are two sides of the same coin. Different but sharing the phenomenon of craving. Sounds crazy I know but I've never drank and not been drunk where as I've taken pain pills and couldn't get high. I would get a little euphoric effect that would quickly dissipate and I'd be chasing that with copious amounts of drugs, never finding it.
So Doug, How can the very mechanism by which an illness manifests be "irrelevant" to you? Isn't the goal to find out why something is the way it is to determine how it happened? Strangling it in it's crib so to speak?
Alcoholism is a complex disorder because it is a three fold disease. It's mental, physical, spiritual.
It seems to me Doug your on this quest as a direct result of your childhood. When my son was young he was going to become biochemist to cure something I had come down with. He wanted to save his dad. An admirable goal. Eventually he moved on from that idea but it's not uncommon for the children of alcoholics to want to find the "cure" for alcoholism to save others from the pain they endured.
I don't usually give advice Doug but I'm going to make an exception. I found the cure to my pain in trusting God, cleaning house and helping others. My advice to you is to find the cure to your pain then pass it on.
I pray for you to receive everything I desire.
BTW, fictional characters are often created not out of thin air, but of real people--or a composite of such--the writers have known. Dr. House is a fabulous example of what I might have looked like had I inherited alcoholism--the INTJ alcoholic.
Another fictional character you might want to study is Al Pacino's portrayal of Lt. Col. Frank Slade. Driving a vette while blind is a whole lot more "fictional" than a Dr. House identifying odd maladies (but only after he "thought" he had the answer multiple times in each episode only to realize he was wrong; time to move on to the next hypothesis). But when I showed that scene to chemical dependency counselors are continuing education events in the early 2000s, many counselors at each event told me they'd been a counselor for three decades, had been a practicing addict for a decade or two before, and they'd seen the movie three times. It had never struck them that Pacino's portrayal was among the greatest ever of an alcoholic. A blind man could charm a young lady onto the dance floor and teach her the tango, and he could intimidate his "babysitter" into doing whatever he wanted him to do. It is the greatest portrayal of an addict, ever, from which one can learn about two of the faces of addiction in terms of behaviors, but both coalescing around the central theme of control of and, therefore, abuse of others.
I am mostly interested in alcoholics others are not identifying. The counselors--and nearly everyone who has ever seen the movie--think it's a movie about a blind man. No, it is not. It's about an alcoholic. And he lost his eyesight because a hand grenade he and his buddies were juggling together during a drinking game blew up in his face.
First, please don't try to psychoanalyze me before reading about the INTJ personality type, which explains "me." As for saving others from the pain they endured--the "others" I focus on are the alcohol/other-drug addicts' victims. Those you hurt that got you imprisoned. Those whose relationships you destroyed, the employers you stole from or otherwise harmed that got you fired or, at least, in trouble.
Second, you confuse the outcome with the cause. Alcohol and other-drug addiction is mental, physical and spiritual--in outcomes, not in its cause. Its cause is biological, rooted in ones genes. Only that can explain why it runs more in some ancestries than in others, more in some families than in others. Only that explains how adopted children growing up in loving adopted homes can turn into raging monsters, out of control brats. Why were they adopted out? Why is a grandchild being raised by a grandparent? In every case, because one or both parents are alcohol/other-drug addicts. Aside from the rarity of both parents being killed, I have never seen an exception.
Third, you were a late stage alcohol/other-drug addict. Waking up in your own urine is a tell-tale sign, even if there might be exceptions. I'm not so interested in you as the obvious drunk, with bar fights, loss of employment, loss of family, soaked in your own urine. I'm interested in what you looked like, how you acted, your egomania before you got to that stage. Big man on the block, big man in school, the school-kid bully, the barroom brawler. You could have gone from a kid without booze on board to a late stage alcoholic all in one fell swoop at age 13, but that is highly unlikely. There was an intervening step, which likely took at least a decade or two to get through.
Because that is the natural progression of alcoholism.
You might be right.
BTW, your comment on the 16 years requires a simple response: you were a dry drunk because you did not work the program. Getting sober requires two things, only one of which is abstinence. You had that during those 16 years. But you did not work to deflate your ego. That's the other part of getting sober: ego deflation.
Sober is not drinking. Recovery is living by the 12 steps on a daily basis.
And recovery, living by the 12 steps, is a process of deflating the ego and developing humility.
However, I define "sobriety" as both abstinence and ego deflation. Recovery is more a process. But that's a quibble over the meaning of words which, in this case, is not crucial to the understanding.
I've known perhaps 10 alcoholics in my life personally, most of which were functioning quite well, no egomania or abuse involved. This article gave me little insight to the topic I find myself being familiar and exposed to and some areas where I disagree. Mainly genetics which I see as a pseudo-science. A crutch so to speak. A doctor can't find a cause for your condition, it's because you're a smoker, or lived with a smoker or played poker with smokers. Genetics proves nothing except perhaps your eye color.
In researching alcoholism decades ago I came across a paper by a doctor who claimed alcoholism was relabeled to disease status (kinda like the flu became covid) so the rich & famous could get insurance medical coverage and not be labeled a drunk as the lowly people were regarded. Insurance will only cover an AMA registered disease. This chicanery was no surprise to me at the time. IMO, Alcoholism is not a disease, no more than obesity or smoking is.
I also didn't pick up on any childhood abuse (except for his sister) as a root cause of low worth or non-existent self esteem. Alcohol being the means of overcoming that pain. The article also gave me the sense that if you're looking for a trigger for something you will surely find it. Scratch hard enough and you will come to the same conclusion, every time. In other words, a bit like obsession.
On the ground, in real life, alcoholics I've known used booze as a crutch to uplift themselves to a perceived level of acceptance that hitherto they could not attain on their own. Sad but true.
If you know 10 alcoholics, you only know 100 people. I've a hunch you are missing a whole slew of them, because 10% of Americans are alcoholics, and it's much higher in some other cultures.
The fact that it's a disease should not translate to "the treatment is insurable," because the impetus for getting sober is tough love and the way to stay sober is the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous and the 12-step program of AA. And that's nearly free.
You missed the egomania in the "ten" you know because you were not among their targets. They don't abuse everyone in their life. If you show you will not put up with abuse, they will move along to softer targets and abuse them, not the hard target like you apparently are.
One more thought: obesity and smoking do not cause the afflicted to abuse others. Alcohol and other drugs capable of causing distortions of perception and memory do that. They are completely different.
I do know more folks than I can count who blow it out every Friday, end of work week. It's their reward to themselves for a grueling work week and the anticipation of family time for 2 whole days. They over drink in my estimation but maintain a level of sanity & security for their families. By your definition they would be alcoholics and I guess you'd be right. I'll give you that. I am 100% in accordance with tough love.
My bone of contention with AA is the admitting and convincing oneself that they are powerless to overcome alcohol and that their lives are unmanageable because of that lack of power. That admittance alone goes against every fiber of my being. I, we, they, no one is powerless. That is why I say this is not a disease nor a predisposition to some gene based hogwash. This is a sober choice folks make before they take that first drink that will lead to too much.
I agree they are not powerless. Show me an alcoholic who wants their drink and I will show you someone with greater willpower than I could ever muster.
The trouble is, they don't want to stop drinking because it makes them feel so damned good. Many recovering addicts I interviewed used the phrase, when speaking of their first drinking episode, "For the first time in my life, I felt powerful." That feeling continues throughout their drinking and using careers. The fact it makes them feel powerful is rooted in egomania, which in turn is a result of euphoric recall: they can do no wrong.
Addicts obviously process the drug differently than you and I do. That's a genetic predisposition, causing a differential biological response. This causes them to act badly, some of the time. Like drinking to excess before a long weekend when they have to be with their family and avoid heavy drinking on the weekend. The questions I have are, do they really love their families more than the hooch? and are they really providing a level of sanity and security for their family--or, perhaps, does being able to so provide serve to inflate their egos? In other words, ego inflation can serve to do good. It does not mean the results will be good every time, nor does it mean they are not alcoholics.
There are some fine lines. Churchill did great good, but his financial life was a mess. Thomas Paine, who I view as the true founder of the United States (the Declaration summarized his "Common Sense," which sold more per capita than any book ever except perhaps the Bible), had six or so people attending his funeral because his misbehaviors as a result of alcoholism caused him to gradually lose nearly all of his friends. I have known two absurdly heavy drinkers in whom I could not confirm alcoholism; well, one admitted he recently got sober. I still don't know about the other because none of his friends or family has come clean about any misbehaviors.
I find no continuity in your discourse. We are going around in circles. One phrase I agree with and have seen for myself, the next is a contradiction. IMO you draw to broad a stroke at the same time too fine a line. "Two heavy drinkers" you could not confirm as alcoholics? Yet a Friday nighter is labeled such. Good parents who carve out time for themselves weekly are just that, good parents. Your analogy is even more upending.
Churchill was a absurdly heavy drinker, morning to night, abominable disposition who was solely responsible for starting WW11. He did NO good yet his funeral was treated as hail the conquering hero.
Did he drink like a pig because of his ego or did the drink give him his ego.
Thomas Paine, a giant of a man, ruffled a few feathers yet no one showed up to his funeral. "The evil that men do lives after them, the good oft interred with their bones". By that metric, Paine was evil and Churchill was the good guy. So all the egotists showed up for that monsters funeral and same did not show up for Paine. I'm not picking up what you're trying to lay down, so let it be with Caesar.
And that is how variable alcoholism is. The common thread: acting badly some of the time, which can be connected to heavy use.
Not only can a "Friday night" drinker be identified as an alcoholic if they act badly; one who drinks once a year can be, if they drink enough and screw up badly enough (as in destroying a relationship or life on their one bender of the year). Yet many "normies" drink every day--think the French and Italian and their wine--and they don't act badly and, therefore, cannot be identified as alcoholics.
You can drink all day and not be one. A 200-pound person can drink a bottle of wine spread out evenly over the day and reach a BAL of--near zero. Two bottles spread out over 12 hours and, at the end of the day, the BAL is .06%. A 120-pounder? .18%. She's an alcoholic, while he is not.
The drink gave Churchill his egomania. As for good v. bad, I might agree with you on Churchill; I haven't studied him adequately. But consider greatness: five of eight Nobel Prize winning authors from the United States during the 20th century were alcoholic. 30% of Academy Award winning actors have been alcoholics (skewed just a bit because Jack Nicholson won three times). There has been almost no revolutionary change in music brought about by non-addicts, from Beethoven to Lennon.
The variability of behaviors and the fact that journalists, historians and biographers don't look for alcoholism in their subjects--too many of them are alcoholics--makes it difficult to find and confirm. But show me their personal lives and I will tell you with 80-90% degree of certainty whether the subject is an alcoholic. The problem is digging deep enough.
Thank you for this information. I have read through it twice and now understand my sister’s situation. We come from a very dysfunctional family and my sister (50) is an alcoholic. My parents are in denial (80’s). She emotionally manipulates them and others around her. I have had enough and refuse to bail her out of financial situations. Now I’m the bad guy. She has recently married her enabler who drinks with her knowing she attended AA twice a day for around 6 months. To top it off she has a marketing /PR firm that represents different alcohols (bourbon in particular, her favorite drink).
The part about ego hit home and now iI understand so much more. Thank you again
Pleasure, Gbro. Understanding this can lift an enormous weight off our shoulders. Before I grasped it I went nuts over the fact I could not understand why someone would do "that," whatever "that" was. Someone doing something as mundane as cutting in line on the road or at a store would make me go nuts. Now, now knowing "that alkie is doing what alkies do," allows me to easily let go. (Non-NTs would have an easier time of it without understanding, but NTs have a need to understand, and I'm one of those.)
Parents and governments are the biggest enablers, which makes helping alcoholics find their bottom challenging at best.
Is it possible that understanding this God complex of alcoholism may help us also understand how the perpetrators of the last four years were capable of doing what they've done?
Yes.
With apologies, I forgot to respond more fully than with a simple "yes" to your incisive query. That's a HUGE "yes."
I'm likely repeating what you already appear to have picked up, but for the benefit of others: because alcoholism causes a Godlike sense of self, and the fact that alcoholism stays so hidden in the early stages, the fact that so long as alcoholics successfully inflate their egos they seem to stave off late-stage alcoholism, and the fact so many of the worst rise to the top of bureaucratic organizations, many if not most of the perpetrators of this, the greatest crime scene since Marxism, are likely alcoholics.
Let's take that sentence piece by piece. Due to euphoric recall, which causes the addict to recall everything they do and say through self-favoring lenses, alcoholics think they are God or at least on a level playing field with God.
Alcoholism remains hidden from most observers because they do not look drunk at BALs at which the rest of us are slurring our speech and staggering. Those close don't divulge the secret because they are either embarrassed, as parents might be, or they have too much to lose, as employees or partners might. After all, if the secret is outed employees and others have positions of power, incomes, wealth and prestige to lose.
They are able to stave off late-stage alcoholism via successful ego inflation. After all, the God becomes a bigger God: look what I can do/get away with/wealth I can create/sex I can have/etc. That keeps them going.
Finally, as Frederich Hayek wrote, the worst rise to the top of bureaucratic organizations. But Hayek did not adequately explain why: because alcoholics have an undying need to wield capricious power over others. What better way than by becoming extraordinarily successful? Such success includes rising to the top of organizations whose main job is to wield power. I think that explains much of what we see in government and some big businesses.
So yes, the criminals--just like probably 90% of other criminals, both ordinary and masterclass--who perpetrated this greatest of scams are very likely, in large part, alcohol and other-drug addicts.
We have good evidence that Peter Daszak is an alcoholic. When I researched alcoholism, the addiction expert doctors I interviewed all thought 20% of their fellow MDs were alcohol/other-drug addicts (and that is a prime reason why many of those became doctors--consider the availability of drugs as a doctor, pharmacist, or other medical person. Fauci is likely too old to be an alcoholic, but he could be on pills or, as author James Graham thought about Hitler, perhaps he was seriously abused by an alcoholic as a child. Or he could be among the (I think) 10-20% of the population that acts badly without benefit of chemistry.
BTW, the other greatest crime ever--Marxism--has largely (if not completely) been perpetrated alcohol and other-drug addicts. Marx, alcoholic. Stalin, alcoholic. The Kims of North Korea, alcoholics. Castro, likely amphetamines. Mao, barbiturates. Their brethren, which the propaganda mills have long claimed were their polar opposites on the political spectrum but who, in fact, were their closest relatives, were also nearly all psychoactive drug addicts: Hitler, amphetamines; Mussolini, alcoholic; Nazi bikers and skinheads, all alcoholics and amphetamine addicts.
The fact that historians and biographers don't have a clue about alcoholism (or, in some cases, likely understand it but don't want to out themselves) obliterates our understanding of history: we cannot make sense of history without understanding the genetic roots and behavioral manifestations of alcoholism.
Re: "Environment obviously has nothing to do with determining whether one becomes an alcoholic." What if that environment is full of breweries, wineries and distilleries? The more we reduce biology the more we learn that we don't really understand. Environment absolutely matters, genes and epigenetics matters, your mom's Vitamin D status during pregnancy matters, on and on. A lot of good here in this talk though. I highly recommend and will read more from this author.
Thank you, Shawn. Just to clarify: environment does have to do with whether one triggers a latent alcoholism. It has nothing to do with whether or not alcoholism is latent, or possible. I grew up with alcoholics all around me. I drank. I tried drinking addictively in college. I could not keep up with the alcoholics, nor did I engage in misbehaviors (per everyone I asked about my behaviors when I drank, since a practicing addict is incapable of true self-diagnosis).
Thanks. Do you mean maladaptive behavior instead of misbehavior?
No. Misbehaviors, which is a manifestation I think of maladaptive, which is more a term of evolution. In other words, I do not act badly when I drink. Alcoholics do, some of the time. It's not every time.
It's okay to have different opinions Doug.
While I could not disagree more with your point of view, inflexible to the point of blindness, I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors. I'm sure they emanate from a place of wanting to do some good in this world. At least on the vaccines, we are in agreement.
Anyone who thinks that inserting a hyphen between the syllables of the word "disease" conveys some sort of profound meaning needs to be approached with skepticism.
I'm not the only one who occasionally uses the hyphenated version, and sees its utility: https://www.liisonlife.com/body-disease-versus-dis-ease/
BTW - beware of the 'Strawman' argument, where a point of view is mischaracterized, then shot down. Addiction (of which alcoholism is one of many) is a maladaptive response to trauma, usually of the early childhood variety.
You seem very defensive and rigid in your judgmental perspective on something you have been hurt by, but never personally experienced. Although my guess would be that you have your own addictive behaviors. We all do. Perhaps an addition to Control is among them.
"Addiction... is a maladaptive response to trauma...." No, it is not, Teresa. You have been completely propagandized by establishment "addiction experts."
I had to redefine alcoholism to find it in the early stages. It is a genetic disorder that causes the afflicted person to biologically process the drug alcohol in such a way as to cause that person to act badly, some of the time. No other definition explains, describes or allows us to identify the disease in the early stages. If it were a maladaptive response to trauma, those who can't drink to the degree alcoholics drink--far more than can non-addicts--would exhibit serial misbehaviors. That rarely happens and, when it does, it's usually a child of an alcoholic.
And stop trying to psychoanalyze me. Stop the ad hominem-style attacks. I'm not defensive; I merely get annoyed at those who think they know something about a topic and show off their ignorance. Sort of like "experts" who proclaim vaccines (especially the latest ones) are "safe and effective." The fact that I was hurt did not compel me to become expert at alcoholism, do tens of thousands of hours of research on the subject, and write four books and 70-something addiction reports on everything alcoholism. That was solely because I simply love acquiring knowledge and wisdom. I do "deep dives," as Scott Adams calls them. When I integrate new ideas emanating from such new knowledge and confirm that almost no one has a clue, I enjoy sharing the ideas. This has been true for me in the fields of economics, long-term tax savings strategies, Type and Temperament, behavioral indications of psychoactive drug addiction and, most recently, everything Virus and vaccines (although I haven't come up with much new in most recent area of "deep dives").
If you understood the Scientist type, the INTJ, you might understand my style of obsession, which I readily admit to. But I suspect you are not in the least bit interested.
The thought-provoking quality of the article facilitates further considerations. While I tend to disagree with many statements, the author(s) inspired me to write the following:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/interchangeable-roles-of-victims
Didn't they tried that in the 20's? yes they did. The Prohibition era was the period from 1920 to 1933 when the United States prohibited the production, importation, transportation and sale of alcoholic beverages. And what it did was provide the criminal element an opportunity to make money as well as injure many from the illegal sale of tainted brew.
And like today's prohibition, it corrupted police forces everywhere and allowed really bad people--those willing to take inordinate risks in an illegal trade, and kill to defend their turf when necessary--to become obscenely wealthy.
Prohibition does no good--addicts will always get their drug, or a drug that serves as a substitute for their favorite one. And it does immense damage to society.
All Now With Wings, if you are suggesting prohibition, we tried that. And we continue to try it with the currently illegal substances. It has obviously been a total failure. Legalize it all, learn how to spot alcoholism, and allow employers, landlords and others to discriminate against practicing alcoholics.
I have a note after my email signature line about my expertise in addiction and we haven't had any problems with alcoholics in my tax practice for decades. We had numerous alcoholics and problems before that signature line was in place. Night and day. Insanity vs. sanity. It's the best thing I ever did for my tax practice.
I've struggled with this and return always to "free will".
It is "free will." The trouble is, as I noted in the interview, alcoholics experience alcohol and other drugs differently than do you and I. The pleasure from use is nearly immeasurable, and it's something non-addicts cannot possibly understand. That's the reason "uncompromising tough love" is essential to effect a cure.
Thank you for pointing this out, it's most important. For me, it was 'free will' for others, not so much. Thank you for the gentle reminder of Jesus' command to "Love One Another": complete and total acceptance of difference = do not judge.
Bravo for the article, it is a blessing for many and I will share it with many off line.
" pleasure from use is nearly immeasurable, and it's something we cannot possibly understand." We're still young yet, lets be foolish and stop pretending we know more than we really do. It would be really helpful for anyone commenting here to first admit that they recognize that all healthy human cells are a problem with exogenously consumed alcohol and that it is a neurotoxin, even when consumed in minute quantities. Mammal + Neurotoxin = Not Optimal